Well I don't agree that a picture of a naked child is automatically child porn (otherwise my parents are in trouble for pictures of me in a bath) but the problem is if you give an inch pedos will take a mile. It's something that society would have to be vigilant about and that's the problem. No one wants to put any effort into it and would rather ban anything that could possibly be abused.
So I'd like to say it's ok. I don't find anything remotely sexual about it. However no matter what their country's laws are it's clear it's supposed to be controversial and they wanted to shock people rather than be art so maybe it should be classed as flat out child porn as it has been.
To be honest I'd rather see parents banned from dressing their 10 year old daughters like whores in skimpy clothes with sexually suggestive phrases on them. That is ten times worse than some album cover.
Well to be fair the president isn't that powerful and only makes $400,000. While that is more than I make per year it's probably less than a band makes and I'm sure the band won't be willing to play for a sweaty president for the amount of money he could pay.
Reloading a page upon error and flipping through tabs are two different things, imo, and I wouldn't say that either solution is the best option in every case.
The PS3 runs Linux. Perhaps it was related to that.
I hope Valve ports their games to Linux. I think it's completely lame that they don't creating dedicated servers for Linux and then expect people to run servers for their games but won't allow those same people to play the game on their OS of choice.
The way I see it, if you play an involved game like most Steam games are, you're no longer multitasking. The game, not the OS, is what you interface with. So why would you want to force it to run using something like wine, when it would be less painful to reboot into Windows and run it natively?
Because not everyone wants to be forced to own a copy of windows just to play games on their PC.
But there are *many* programming languages out there *far* superior in their own domains, and Javascript is absolutely among them.
I was going to completely agree with you until you said this. Javascript is not a good language. Yes part of the problem is how browsers handle it. But if the language is going to allow people to shit all over it then it's just as much at fault.
The JavaScript solution is a way to get around the fact the internet tubes aren't big enough. I'd argue that a server handling the job of server the page again isn't any worse than having to deal with dozens of Ajax requests and depending on the browser the Ajax implementation may ruin performance on the client side. Especially on older machines which is sort of ironic since the whole point of doing things in the browser is supposed to make things more neutral and open to all.
You don't need to build things within a "neutral" environment like a web browser. Numerous programs that have to be installed have taken off on the web. ICQ, MSN, Email, etc.
If you make something compelling people will get it and while my line of work is web development I must say so much time is waste making sure you support worthless browsers or so people who don't have whatever plugin can see something.
There is some sort of mentality that if you bad ass site rocks in IE5 that you're more manly than everyone else. All this mentality has done is give people no reason to upgrade their browsers and as a result hold back web development. Instead of written something new and innovative you have to spend time has to be spent on writing different code to perform the same thing in JavaScript, CSS hacks, etc.
Yes there are a lot of frameworks that over come these issues but it's a shame that so much time has to be spent over coming problems that shouldn't exist rather than writing some new and inspirational.
This is true and as I recall the creator of HTML had said, in the past, there wasn't really any intention of people having to delve into the code and presumably he envisioned web page creation like using Word.
Secondly the web has been built up by a lot of people that learned to program through other means. Which is fine for the most part but I think peoples lack of care over things like MVC, nicely written code, etc has really ruined the web. I think the early browser wars didn't help this. After all why should someone code with standards when the big guys don't even do thing to one standard?
I'm not a huge fan of Javascript and to be honest it would be nice to see it go away. There has to be a better way to do things. In fact I think everyone should be forced to sit down and agree on one standard for HTML, CSS, and every other fauly web language (ie PHP and it's very sloppy and poor naming conventions) and we start from scratch.
Browsers are free these days so starting from scratch won't be a huge loss to anyone and by using one standard companies should have the decency to share code to help spread the cost around and I think companies will be surprised how fast people are willing to upgrade their lame old browser when they have to.
Flouting the laws doesn't mean those laws aren't made by a government. American tax protesters have argued that income tax is illegal and won in some instances. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94630,00.html Mind you most lose but that's the case with the EU. Some countries may ignore thing the EU but that doesn't mean everyone can.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it is a duck. This applies to governments too.
True but as far as I'm concerned if something is 100% unexaggerated truth then it's not defamatory or if it was then the person who committed the act is to blame not the person that reported the truth.
I had a friend that would probably be classified as depressed and I agree with what you said. In most instances there isn't wrong with someone who suffers from depression but I suspect a lot people think it's contagious. What can you expect when there are people that think gay is contagious?
I think the over all point is unhappy people want something passive like to just lay there and zone out. So activities that involve doing something (ie video games and even participating in an online community) probably don't count.
That said you can always find a depressing person any group.
"The EU does not make rules to _govern_ its member states, it makes rules that its member states _agreed to
abide by and implement_ as a condition of their membership."
No, they EU makes rules that governments agree to. How can a group of governments not be a government? Would you
call a group of African men anything other than African men? Also it's not always a case of complete agreement and
the EU does try to force things on its members. Just in the case of Sweden and Snus. Snus is illegal for sale everywhere
else in the EU and the EU wanted to Sweden to give it up too buy and it was not just a case of Sweden saying "no thanks." but
that they had to fight it and even after the EU Okayed it there were still fights with surrounding areas and Snus. So much for
their rules being so amicable.
"The terms "civil war" and "union troops" highlight just one of the key differences between the EU and the
US federation of states, because the EU has no armed forces, and while it's entirely possible for two or
more EU member states to declare war on each other, it would not be a civil war, but a case of sovereign
nations going to war with other sovereign nations. Such a situation would very likely result in the warring
nations being immediately expelled from the EU until hostilities ceased (and possibly for a considerable
time thereafter) because they would by definition be unable to comply with fundamental EU principles such
as ensuring the free movement of goods, services, money, and people between all member states."
That is a silly argument since, if you want to be technical, the early US didn't have a federal government either
until deciding it was wise to not rely on militia men and actually have a federal military. Secondly, a union of states / countries
doesn't have a strict definition that implies that they have to have a single military force. I'll eat my words if you can find
something that strictly defines what a union of territories must have. Lastly, just like the EU, states have the freedom to do some things their own
way. Hence the reason US states have different speed limits, different alcohol laws, different fireworks laws, etc. So, just like EU states, the US
states have the freedom to do what they want in a lot of instances.
"Which raises another difference in that EU members may leave if they choose to without any repercussions
other than a loss of the benefits that membership confers on them, as Greenland did in 1985. Furthermore,
using force to "keep the union together" is not something the EU or its members would tolerate, because the
idea of it was originally preventing a re-occurrence of the situations that led to two devastating wars in
Europe during the 20th century, so _any_ attempt to use military force of any type by the EU itself or
any members acting on its behalf against other members would result in its immediate collapse."
Comparing 1800's US to post-World war Europe is silly. No sensible European would want to be compared to Hitler and that
is what would happen if they used force to keep a member state in. Saying the EU wouldn't mind to lose Germany, the UK or France
is silly.
"The EU isn't a government because it doesn't govern -- it has rules by which members are expected to
abide, but there are no actual mechanisms for enforcing those rules beyond financial penalties
(which they also have no way of enforcing) and the threat of expulsion from the EU, which
has never actually happened, and would in any case mean that the expelled country was immediately
freed from the requirement to abide by EU rules, including the financial penalties incurred for not
abiding by the rules!"
Uh, governing is basically setting rules for people to following. One infamous case (which luckily has been relaxed now)
is the EU regulations on veg and fruit and no it's not just a case of they're saying you should only accept this fruit but you can do
what you want. Otherwise there wouldn't have been public complaints that lead to the EU changing it's mind. By your logic the EU
wouldn't have had to change its mind and instead the governments could have just don't what they wanted.
Sorry but this is just as boring as Epic's others
on
Review: Gears of War 2
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Epic actually tried to be different with Unreal. Since then they've either copied what Id has done or just perpetuated the same old border line gay porn men strutting around in space with no story line, tired gameplay and whatever other tired cliche's little CliffyB needs to make up for the fact he's short and looks younger than he is.
The guy's made an announcement that he doesn't want to be called CliffyB and no goes by Dude Huge...I mena come on, what more proof is there that all there games are all about CliffyB's little man syndrome?
Yeah with a European Parliament, the EU creating rules to govern over its member states makes it nothing like a government.
It's a political union which if you want to be anal is not the word government but it functions exactly like the US federal government whose origins began as a union of states which is also why, in the civil war, the northern troops were union troops. They wanted to keep the union together. So yeah the EU so not a government.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I don't agree that a picture of a naked child is automatically child porn (otherwise my parents are in trouble for pictures of me in a bath) but the problem is if you give an inch pedos will take a mile. It's something that society would have to be vigilant about and that's the problem. No one wants to put any effort into it and would rather ban anything that could possibly be abused.
So I'd like to say it's ok. I don't find anything remotely sexual about it. However no matter what their country's laws are it's clear it's supposed to be controversial and they wanted to shock people rather than be art so maybe it should be classed as flat out child porn as it has been.
To be honest I'd rather see parents banned from dressing their 10 year old daughters like whores in skimpy clothes with sexually suggestive phrases on them. That is ten times worse than some album cover.
But who cares? Seeing how not pedo probably has that cover and instead wants something more sexual.
Hopefully that will be rectified in the future rather than the president using those powers to have a personal concert every day. ;)
Well to be fair the president isn't that powerful and only makes $400,000. While that is more than I make per year it's probably less than a band makes and I'm sure the band won't be willing to play for a sweaty president for the amount of money he could pay.
Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected. In this case, I should think "interesting" would suffice.
It's that kind of fairy talk that is helping MS lose the all time important war against the iPod.
Grow a set, pick a side and prepare for war!
Yes you can achieve these effects and you can do without ruining the page upon changing the font.
A lot of site problems are down to a lack of skill or laziness.
Reloading a page upon error and flipping through tabs are two different things, imo, and I wouldn't say that either solution is the best option in every case.
The PS3 runs Linux. Perhaps it was related to that.
I hope Valve ports their games to Linux. I think it's completely lame that they don't creating dedicated servers for Linux and then expect people to run servers for their games but won't allow those same people to play the game on their OS of choice.
The way I see it, if you play an involved game like most Steam games are, you're no longer multitasking. The game, not the OS, is what you interface with. So why would you want to force it to run using something like wine, when it would be less painful to reboot into Windows and run it natively?
Because not everyone wants to be forced to own a copy of windows just to play games on their PC.
But there are *many* programming languages out there *far* superior in their own domains, and Javascript is absolutely among them.
I was going to completely agree with you until you said this. Javascript is not a good language. Yes part of the problem is how browsers handle it. But if the language is going to allow people to shit all over it then it's just as much at fault.
The JavaScript solution is a way to get around the fact the internet tubes aren't big enough. I'd argue that a server handling the job of server the page again isn't any worse than having to deal with dozens of Ajax requests and depending on the browser the Ajax implementation may ruin performance on the client side. Especially on older machines which is sort of ironic since the whole point of doing things in the browser is supposed to make things more neutral and open to all.
You don't need to build things within a "neutral" environment like a web browser. Numerous programs that have to be installed have taken off on the web. ICQ, MSN, Email, etc.
If you make something compelling people will get it and while my line of work is web development I must say so much time is waste making sure you support worthless browsers or so people who don't have whatever plugin can see something.
There is some sort of mentality that if you bad ass site rocks in IE5 that you're more manly than everyone else. All this mentality has done is give people no reason to upgrade their browsers and as a result hold back web development. Instead of written something new and innovative you have to spend time has to be spent on writing different code to perform the same thing in JavaScript, CSS hacks, etc.
Yes there are a lot of frameworks that over come these issues but it's a shame that so much time has to be spent over coming problems that shouldn't exist rather than writing some new and inspirational.
This is true and as I recall the creator of HTML had said, in the past, there wasn't really any intention of people having to delve into the code and presumably he envisioned web page creation like using Word.
Secondly the web has been built up by a lot of people that learned to program through other means. Which is fine for the most part but I think peoples lack of care over things like MVC, nicely written code, etc has really ruined the web. I think the early browser wars didn't help this. After all why should someone code with standards when the big guys don't even do thing to one standard?
I'm not a huge fan of Javascript and to be honest it would be nice to see it go away. There has to be a better way to do things. In fact I think everyone should be forced to sit down and agree on one standard for HTML, CSS, and every other fauly web language (ie PHP and it's very sloppy and poor naming conventions) and we start from scratch.
Browsers are free these days so starting from scratch won't be a huge loss to anyone and by using one standard companies should have the decency to share code to help spread the cost around and I think companies will be surprised how fast people are willing to upgrade their lame old browser when they have to.
Look, the EU just smacked down France's three strikes internet piracy law. Aland has problems regarding snus too and their duck hunting has been trampled on. It clearly isn't that easy to just flout the laws. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/finland/1510554/Tiny-island-that's-ready-to-stop-Europe-in-its-tracks.html
Flouting the laws doesn't mean those laws aren't made by a government. American tax protesters have argued that income tax is illegal and won in some instances. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94630,00.html Mind you most lose but that's the case with the EU. Some countries may ignore thing the EU but that doesn't mean everyone can.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it is a duck. This applies to governments too.
Someone needs to hook her up with http://www.yourethemannowdog.com/
Well recording a movie is one of the worst things you can do. Al Qaeda record movies all the time.
True but as far as I'm concerned if something is 100% unexaggerated truth then it's not defamatory or if it was then the person who committed the act is to blame not the person that reported the truth.
I had a friend that would probably be classified as depressed and I agree with what you said. In most instances there isn't wrong with someone who suffers from depression but I suspect a lot people think it's contagious. What can you expect when there are people that think gay is contagious?
If it's true then what judge in their right mind would block a site for telling the truth?
Unhappy people are more likely to watch TV but that doesn't mean all TV watchers are unhappy.
I think the over all point is unhappy people want something passive like to just lay there and zone out. So activities that involve doing something (ie video games and even participating in an online community) probably don't count.
That said you can always find a depressing person any group.
"The EU does not make rules to _govern_ its member states, it makes rules that its member states _agreed to abide by and implement_ as a condition of their membership."
No, they EU makes rules that governments agree to. How can a group of governments not be a government? Would you call a group of African men anything other than African men? Also it's not always a case of complete agreement and the EU does try to force things on its members. Just in the case of Sweden and Snus. Snus is illegal for sale everywhere else in the EU and the EU wanted to Sweden to give it up too buy and it was not just a case of Sweden saying "no thanks." but that they had to fight it and even after the EU Okayed it there were still fights with surrounding areas and Snus. So much for their rules being so amicable.
"The terms "civil war" and "union troops" highlight just one of the key differences between the EU and the US federation of states, because the EU has no armed forces, and while it's entirely possible for two or more EU member states to declare war on each other, it would not be a civil war, but a case of sovereign nations going to war with other sovereign nations. Such a situation would very likely result in the warring nations being immediately expelled from the EU until hostilities ceased (and possibly for a considerable time thereafter) because they would by definition be unable to comply with fundamental EU principles such as ensuring the free movement of goods, services, money, and people between all member states."
That is a silly argument since, if you want to be technical, the early US didn't have a federal government either until deciding it was wise to not rely on militia men and actually have a federal military. Secondly, a union of states / countries doesn't have a strict definition that implies that they have to have a single military force. I'll eat my words if you can find something that strictly defines what a union of territories must have. Lastly, just like the EU, states have the freedom to do some things their own way. Hence the reason US states have different speed limits, different alcohol laws, different fireworks laws, etc. So, just like EU states, the US states have the freedom to do what they want in a lot of instances.
"Which raises another difference in that EU members may leave if they choose to without any repercussions other than a loss of the benefits that membership confers on them, as Greenland did in 1985. Furthermore, using force to "keep the union together" is not something the EU or its members would tolerate, because the idea of it was originally preventing a re-occurrence of the situations that led to two devastating wars in Europe during the 20th century, so _any_ attempt to use military force of any type by the EU itself or any members acting on its behalf against other members would result in its immediate collapse."
Comparing 1800's US to post-World war Europe is silly. No sensible European would want to be compared to Hitler and that is what would happen if they used force to keep a member state in. Saying the EU wouldn't mind to lose Germany, the UK or France is silly.
"The EU isn't a government because it doesn't govern -- it has rules by which members are expected to abide, but there are no actual mechanisms for enforcing those rules beyond financial penalties (which they also have no way of enforcing) and the threat of expulsion from the EU, which has never actually happened, and would in any case mean that the expelled country was immediately freed from the requirement to abide by EU rules, including the financial penalties incurred for not abiding by the rules!"
Uh, governing is basically setting rules for people to following. One infamous case (which luckily has been relaxed now) is the EU regulations on veg and fruit and no it's not just a case of they're saying you should only accept this fruit but you can do what you want. Otherwise there wouldn't have been public complaints that lead to the EU changing it's mind. By your logic the EU wouldn't have had to change its mind and instead the governments could have just don't what they wanted.
Epic actually tried to be different with Unreal. Since then they've either copied what Id has done or just perpetuated the same old border line gay porn men strutting around in space with no story line, tired gameplay and whatever other tired cliche's little CliffyB needs to make up for the fact he's short and looks younger than he is.
The guy's made an announcement that he doesn't want to be called CliffyB and no goes by Dude Huge...I mena come on, what more proof is there that all there games are all about CliffyB's little man syndrome?
Yeah with a European Parliament, the EU creating rules to govern over its member states makes it nothing like a government.
It's a political union which if you want to be anal is not the word government but it functions exactly like the US federal government whose origins began as a union of states which is also why, in the civil war, the northern troops were union troops. They wanted to keep the union together. So yeah the EU so not a government.